Simulation?

[domagoj]

This is one of the things i thought about!

The Simulation Hypothesis proposes that reality is in fact a simulation of which those affected by the simulants are generally unaware. The hypothesis does not have global scope since, if true, it entails that there is a reality that is not a simulation as there must be a place housing the machinery on which the simulation is being run. The hypothesis itself relies on the development of simulated reality, currently regarded as a fictional technology. This technology has been a central plot device of many science-fiction films, most notably Star Trek, The Truman Show, The Thirteenth Floor and The Matrix, as well as stories such as I don't know, Timmy, being God is a big responsibility[1] and A Very Special Shutdown Notice[2]. The Simulation Hypothesis has become the subject of serious academic debate within the field of transhumanism, via the work of Nick Bostrom and others.[3]

On the surface, the Simulation Hypothesis is an example of a skeptical hypothesis, a proposal concerning the nature of reality put forward to question beliefs. As such, there is a long history to the underlying thesis that reality is an illusion. This thesis (which can be dated in Western thought back to Parmenides, Zeno of Elea and Plato and in Eastern thought to the Advaita Vedanta concept of Maya) arguably underpins the mind-body dualism of Descartes, and is closely related to phenomenalism, a stance briefly adopted by Bertrand Russell.

However, Nick Bostrom and other writers postulate that this is not the case, and there are empirical reasons why the 'Simulation Hypothesis' might be valid.[3][4] It is related to the Omphalos hypothesis in theology.

According to Bostrom, one part of this trilemma must be true:

1. Almost no civilization will reach a technological level capable of producing simulated realities.
2. Almost no civilization reaching aforementioned technological status will produce a simulated reality, for any of a number of reasons, such as diversion of computational processing power for other tasks, ethical considerations of holding entities captive in simulated realities, etc.
3. Almost all entities with our general set of experiences are living in a simulation.

[Mephistopheles]

Isn't the Simulation Hypothesis very similar to the Invisible Pink Pony theory?
You can talk a lot about the world being a simulation, but what effects would that actually have on our lives? Scientifically speaking, what provable thesis can be derived from the Simulation Hypothesis?
As long as the hypothesis has no measurable effect on the world I'd put it in the same category as religion and thus classify it as irrelevant to human life.

[Bulgaroktonos]

No programmer or developer would have been so evil to let the ERE been destroyed by barbarians ... this must be hard reality ...or it was probably a bug :D

[domagoj]

I never said it must have any effects.
Just think about it.

[NikeBG]

It doesn't have to have a direct effect on our lives - it's philosophy (or theosophy to some extent), after all. And thanks, domagoj, for the thread - I've been thinking about similar things (in a theosophical aspect) since quite some years now, but didn't know there's an established terminology already. I guess I'll have to check out the Wiki page tomorrow for a more detailed read.

P.S. I remembered it can actually have an effect on our lives, by raising an ethical question about the development of AI (and clarifying the classifications of the meanings of AI and NI, of course, with their respective rights). I.e. is the AI of, f.e., some advanced computer game a (primitive) form of life and should it be regarded as such? Basically, point 2 of the trilemma.

[Doux]

Isn't the Simulation Hypothesis very similar to the Invisible Pink Pony theory?
You can talk a lot about the world being a simulation, but what effects would that actually have on our lives? Scientifically speaking, what provable thesis can be derived from the Simulation Hypothesis?
As long as the hypothesis has no measurable effect on the world I'd put it in the same category as religion and thus classify it as irrelevant to human life.You probably meant to say "what disprovable thesis can be derived ..." and if not, I would suggest to change it that way, since science is all about falsification.

I think the Simulation Hypothesis is interesting, but only for a short while for reasons that Mephisto already mentioned. It can be fun to think about the consequences, but I'd rather try to find out how the world works, through experiments and observation, and speculate about filosophical topics like ethics and the origin of religion. I do appreciate the raising of this topic, though, so if you if you've read something on SH that you're willing to share, I'd like to hear it.

[NikeBG]

I think he means exactly "provable thesis", because science is about repeating things in the same manner, getting the same results and therefore proving A or B in order to create a somewhat stable law on which to build our lives upon. Thus, the Simulation Hypothesis indeed doesn't offer anything stable. Quite the contrary - it challenges the idea that everything we've learned so far can be not real. Then again, as one of the linked articles on the Wiki page says, even if we're in a simulation, for ourselves everything around us is indeed real and therefore the results of our science are still fully valid.

[Mephistopheles]

I don't believe in positivism (which I consider sort of a religion) and thus of course mean "disproveable".

[Firefox]

I think he means exactly "provable thesis", because science is about repeating things in the same manner, getting the same results and therefore proving A or B in order to create a somewhat stable law on which to build our lives upon. Thus, the Simulation Hypothesis indeed doesn't offer anything stable. Quite the contrary - it challenges the idea that everything we've learned so far can be not real. Then again, as one of the linked articles on the Wiki page says, even if we're in a simulation, for ourselves everything around us is indeed real and therefore the results of our science are still fully valid.

Correct!
If causality is consistent throughout the "simulation" that would be well enough for science, and the hypothesis (which falls down to "there's a higher order of reality we don't have access to") is meaningless until we can match it to something observable in our "reality", or use it to access/exploit the other.